Remimazolam versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

异丙酚 镇静 医学 置信区间 荟萃分析 不利影响 麻醉 相对风险 子群分析 内科学
作者
Eduardo Cerchi Barbosa,Paula Arruda do Espirito Santo,Stefano Baraldo,Gilmara Coelho Meine
出处
期刊:BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia [Elsevier BV]
卷期号:132 (6): 1219-1229 被引量:22
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2024.02.005
摘要

Background Propofol has a favourable efficacy profile in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, however adverse events remain frequent. Emerging evidence supports remimazolam use in gastrointestinal endoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares remimazolam and propofol, both combined with a short-acting opioid, for sedation of adults in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy-, safety-, and satisfaction-related outcomes between remimazolam and propofol, both combined with short-acting opioids, for sedation of adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We performed sensitivity analyses, subgroup assessments by type of short-acting opioid used and age range, and meta-regression analysis using mean patient age as a covariate. We used R statistical software for statistical analyses. Results We included 15 trials (4516 subjects). Remimazolam was associated with a significantly lower sedation success rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.991; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.984–0.998; high-quality evidence) and a slightly longer induction time (mean difference [MD] 9 s; 95% CI 4–13; moderate-quality evidence), whereas there was no significant difference between the sedatives in other time-related outcomes. Remimazolam was associated with significantly lower rates of respiratory depression (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.30–0.56; high-quality evidence), hypotension (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.35–0.51; moderate-quality evidence), hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.12–0.52; high-quality evidence), and bradycardia (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30–0.58; high-quality evidence). There was no difference in patient (MD 0.41; 95% CI –0.07 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence) and endoscopist satisfaction (MD –0.31; 95% CI –0.65 to 0.04; high-quality evidence) between both drugs. Conclusions Remimazolam has clinically similar efficacy and greater safety when compared with propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopies.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
boss完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
无限的千凝完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
科研通AI5应助顺心柠檬采纳,获得10
4秒前
科研通AI5应助贺小刚采纳,获得10
5秒前
6秒前
毛毛虫发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
jor666完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
9秒前
zero灬给leolin的求助进行了留言
10秒前
Arthur完成签到 ,获得积分10
11秒前
12秒前
迅速云朵发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
通不通la发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
15秒前
AlwaysKim发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
啊哈哈哈哈完成签到,获得积分10
22秒前
22秒前
我是老大应助NeuroYan采纳,获得50
23秒前
AlwaysKim完成签到,获得积分10
26秒前
sszz发布了新的文献求助10
27秒前
科研通AI5应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
30秒前
传奇3应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
30秒前
pluto应助科研通管家采纳,获得20
31秒前
科研通AI5应助AlwaysKim采纳,获得30
34秒前
靓丽的战斗机完成签到,获得积分10
35秒前
碧蓝的盼夏完成签到,获得积分10
37秒前
39秒前
生动的书蕾完成签到,获得积分10
40秒前
xRuri发布了新的文献求助10
42秒前
小杰完成签到 ,获得积分10
43秒前
44秒前
44秒前
情怀应助迅速云朵采纳,获得10
46秒前
开坦克的贝塔完成签到,获得积分10
47秒前
yuan发布了新的文献求助10
48秒前
49秒前
风趣秋白完成签到,获得积分10
52秒前
研友_8Y2DXL完成签到,获得积分10
52秒前
yoyo20012623发布了新的文献求助30
54秒前
共享精神应助王迪采纳,获得10
55秒前
高分求助中
【此为提示信息,请勿应助】请按要求发布求助,避免被关 20000
Les Mantodea de Guyane Insecta, Polyneoptera 2500
Technologies supporting mass customization of apparel: A pilot project 450
Brain and Heart The Triumphs and Struggles of a Pediatric Neurosurgeon 400
Cybersecurity Blueprint – Transitioning to Tech 400
Mixing the elements of mass customisation 400
Периодизация спортивной тренировки. Общая теория и её практическое применение 310
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 物理 生物化学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 内科学 复合材料 物理化学 电极 遗传学 量子力学 基因 冶金 催化作用
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3783164
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3328499
关于积分的说明 10236697
捐赠科研通 3043596
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1670599
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 799766
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 759119